ML20043A743
| ML20043A743 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001201 |
| Issue date: | 05/14/1990 |
| From: | Bidinger G, Horn M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043A733 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9005230071 | |
| Download: ML20043A743 (23) | |
Text
-
p001409
./
UNITED STATES 1
[
' g[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5-j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k..w..e MAY I 41990 1
l
' DOCKET NO:
70-1201 l
1 LICENSEE:-
B&W Fuel Company
-Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant Lynchburg, Virginia
SUBJECT:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL Introduction By revised application dated June 21, 1989 (supersedes application dated April 11, 1988), B&W Fue1LCompany (BWFC), Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant -(CNFP),
requested that License No. SNM-1168 be renewed.
By letters dated June 21, August 10, and December 19, 1989, BWFC provided environmental information.
The CNFP in Lynchburg, Virginia, produces fuel assemblies for use in commercial light-water reactors.
The facility processes low-enriched uranium (54.1%
t U-235) received as uranium dioxide (U0 ) pellets, encapsulates the pellets in 2
metal, tubing, and clusters the tubing into fuel assemblies for shipment.
In addition to the fabrication facility, there is a storage area for UFs cylinders,-
treatment area for chemical and radiological liquid waste, and an area used for refurbishment of contaminated field service equipment.
Sanitary waste water is discharged to the sanitary treatment facility at the nearby Naval Nuclear Fuel
~
l Division (NNFD).
A site plan ~is_shown in Figure.1.
The overall' operations and impacts of CNFP were appraised in documents issued in February 1976 (1) and May 1983. (2) These environmental impact appraisals i
provided descriptions of the surrounding area, affected environment, and the operations.
To the extent this information remains unchanged, it is not repeated in this assessment.
This assessment discusses,the environmental consequences of past operations and the_ license renewal, the effluents, and monitoring program.
Two Babcock & Wilcox facilities, the NNFD and the NNFD Research Laboratory (NNFD-RL), operating under separate SNM licenses, are also located on the site.
The environmental impacts of these facilities have been discussed in separate environmental assessments. (3,4) The cumulative impact of the three facilities will be addressed in this assessment when common systems are involved or when plant discharges are combined.
Pursuant:to 10 CFR 51.21,.
the NRC has prepared this assessment of the environmental impacts from continued operations.
Proposed Action
.The proposed action is the renewal of the license necessary for CNFP to continue operations.
Principal activities in the fabrication facility include the processing of low-enrich'd uranium (54.1% U-235) received as UO2 pellets, encapsulating the pellets :a metal tubing, and clustering the tubing into fuel assemblies for
. shipment to nuclear reactor sites.
In addition to the fabrication facility, there is a treatment area for chemical and radiological liquid waste, a storage area for UF8 cylinders, and an area used for refurbishment of contaminated field service equipment.
Sanitary waste water is discharged to the sanitary treatment facility at the nearby NNFD fabrication plant.
Byproduct material and transuranic elements contained in sealed capsules are available for nondestructive testing and inspection purposes.
9005230071 900517 PDR ADOCK 07001201 C
t '.
.r 2
MAY 141990 t;;
..-5 :
I
- r 1
a
[sg
-U s 18 e
l
- -s it
!.. E III ti p
f 3
3 l
I. f5:s
~!
l g
.{: lh,fe.!I:;!.'3.I a
. ".i g E r l _' 5
- g gs g
- .=g o
n g :* O. E ".
i,.
.r.'S.
5.Bg*,..r.e
..g:
l.
e Il
.E*s[g8 a
a E
8 s
v.
,}
Y55A$$fh_hYYh$$$$Y YY I
1 L
. _s"
/
l
(
n
?
~
I l
e--~~~~~
R i
s N
N g
e
,I g
h g
/
)
.a I
,' i
.b e
e
([ f
] y ]~
, \\,
(*
~
e,s a
a 1
^
es.
i w
l 3
i S
w i '
.l g
1 i l l
j i
.L
(
3 g
n n
J
\\
m n
50 =
- g5 J
=
u i....:.
i O
g 1
I.
8 O
I 1
O g
4
.S 3
I; 9
a I
r I
Figure 1
L }c.
Babcock & Wilcox Fuel Company 3
MAY 14 '1990 Need for the Proposed Action The BWFC CNFP is one of several facilities that fabricates fuel elements for j
-light water reactors.- There is continuing demand to meet the needs for oper-ating reactors.
Because BWFC CNFP is a supplier of fuel for reactors, denial-I of the license renewal would necessitate expansion of similar activities at another existing fuel fabrication facility or the construction and operation of a new plant.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action Alternatives to the proposed action include complete denial of BWFC CNFP's renewal application.
This action would result in CNFP ceasing all operations at the facility that involve licensed material.
This alternative would be considered only if issues of public health and safety could not be resolved to the satisfaction of the NRC..The-only benefit to be gained would be the cessation of the environmental impacts from operation at the CNFP site.
These impacts would, however, be transferred to the facility sites that increased their operations; therefore, there would be no net benefit to the environment.
Impacts from past operations have been minor.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action A.
Radiological Effluents i
Air Potentially radioactive sources of exhaust air include the pellet vault, the pellet loading. area, the fuel rod drying chambers, the laboratory, and the liquid evaporator system.
The exhaust gases from each of these areas pass through a prefilter and a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter.
The filtered exhaust is discharged from one stack about 9.3m (30.5f t) above the ground or is recirculated to the controlled areas.
Table 1 summarizes the airborne effluent data.
Additionally, a separate building (ECHO 330) is used for. refurbishment of contaminated field service equipment.
This area exhausts through its own filtered stack.
Table 2 provides the effluent data for this building.
On December 2, 1989, CNFP began operation of the Service Equipment Refurbishment Facility _
in the main building.
This' facility utilizes the main plant stack.
Although CNFP has indicated that the ECHO stack will be eliminated, the ECHO 330 building is still in operation.
l
)
8.'
j Babcock & Wilcox Fuel Company 4
MAY 141990 Table 1.
Gaseous effluent release data for the CNFP Isotopes (pCi)
Period U-234 U-235 U-236 U-238 Total
- 01/01/82 - 06/30/82 3.56 0.16 0.02 0.83 4.56~
07/01/82 - 12/31/82 3.20 0.14 0.01 0.75 4.11 01/01/83 - 06/30/83 3.38 0.15 0.02 0.79 4.33 07/01/83 - 12/31/83
'1.34 0.06 0.01 0.31 1.716 01/01/84 - 06/30/84 2.64 0.12 0.01 0.62 3.38 07/01/84 - 12/31/84 2.91 0.13
.0.0) 0.68 3.73 01/01/85 - 06/30/85 2.44 0.11 0.0:
0.57 3.133 07/01/85.- 12/31/85' 2.24 0.10 0.01 0.53 2.875 01/01/86 - 06/30/86 2.65 0.12 0.01 0.62 3.40 07/01/86l-12/31/86 3.00 0.13 0.01 0.70 3.851 01/01/87 - 06/30/87 2.31 0.10 0.01 0.54 2.964 07/01/87 - 12/31/87.
1.58 0.07' O.01 0.37 2.027 01 01 88 - 06/30/88' 2.34 0.10 0.01 0.55 3.003
/ /
07/01/88 - 12/31/88 2.14 0.10 0.01 0.50 2.750 01/01/89 - 06/30/89 1.76 0.08 0.01 0.41 2.26' 07/01/89 - 12/13/89 2.86 0.13 0.01 0.67 3.67 "The total microcuries are measured values; the release for each isotope is calculated based on 2.93 w/o uranium enrichment.
1 Table 2.
Gaseous effluent release data for the field services building Quarter pCi 1st 86 "4.70 E-4 2nd 86 4.84 E-4 3rd 86 4.81 E-4 4th 86 4.12 E-4 1st 8'7 4.27 E-4 2nd 87 4.49 E-4 3rd 87 3.95 E-4 4th 87 3.16 E-4 1st 88 5.98 E-4 2nd 88 6.26 E-4 3rd 88 1.16 E-3
.4th 88 9.03 E-4
'}
f Babcock & Wilcox Fuel-Company 5
MAY 14 1m l
r In 1980, the NRC issued to CNFP an Order to Modify License.- This modification imposed a discharge limit of 10 microcuries per calender-quarter to assure that planned releases resulted.in no member of the public receiving an annual dose equivalent of more than 25 millirems to the whole body, 75 millirems to the-thyroid, or 25 millirems to any other l
organ.
CNFP has incorporated the conditions from the Order into the-license-condition section of the application.
Therefore, CNFP still has a limit on gross alpha radioactivity of 10 microcuries per calender quarter.
If this limit is exceeded, CNFP must submit a written report identifying the cause and corrective actions taken.
i Section 70.59 of 10 CFR Part 70 requires licensees to submit cemiannual l
reports to the NRC=specifying the quantity of each of the principal _
radionuclides released to unrestricted areas and such other information as 1
the NRC may require to estimate maximum potential annual radiation doses 1
to the public resulting.from effluent releases.
Regulatory Guide 4.16 provides an acceptable method for reporting of effluent. data.
In order to obtain uniform reporting:from licensees, the staff recommends that the licensee be required to submit results for the semiannual report in accordance with.Section 5 of Regulatory Guide 4.16.
j i
, Liquid l
Potentially contaminated liquids generated at_the CNFP are controlled by l
means of a dedicated evaporation system.
The liquid effluent is collected and allowed to evaporate (with-heat if necessary)- into the existing airborne effluent control system where it is HEPA filtered prior to
-release.
Figure 2 shows the flow diagram of processed liquids. The
{
ves_sels used to collect / evaporate the liquid are inspected monthly for sludge: accumulation.
Although CNFP upgraded the liquid processing system to eliminate uranium discharges to the stream, the liquid retention tank system is maintained j
as a backup to the evaporation system.
If the system were used, the
~
accumulated liquid in these tanks would be sampled, analyzed, and treated-
-i as necessary, prior to release.
Table 3 summarizes the liquic effluent l j
data for previous years, g __
.j 4
MAY 14 tgg FLOW CHART OF LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM CLEANING ROOM GASEOUS EFFLUENT DRAINS RELEASE U
h ACTIVATED HECA DEIONIZER CHARCOAL LAB FILTRATION REGENERATION FILTER DRAINS NON CONTAMINdTED LIQUIDS h
1' T
1r EVC.PORATION
-I-----------------------------
i i
l h
I (SEE NOTE BELOW) i OVERFLOW l'
l
RADIOLOGICAL I
CONTAMINATED
--t-l dd M LIQUIDS LIQUID LIQUID WASTE WASTE PELLET AIR AGITATION _
RETENTION RETENTION LOADING ~
N v
l ROOM STANDPIPE NC t
's
- w. L *,, y vb%./bvVeT m
LIQUID WASTE SUMP TD WET WEATHER STREAM NOTE: NORMAL PROCESSING FOR CONTAMINATED LIQUIDS IS THROUGH THE EVADORATOR / HEPA SYSTEM.
THE RETENTION TANK / WET WEATHER STREAM SYSTEM WILL ONLY BE USED AS A BACKUP FOR CONTAMINATED LIQUIDS CROCESSING.
Figure 2
Babcock & Wilcox Fuel Company 7
MAY 141990 Table 3.
Liquid effluent release data for the CNFP Isotoper (pCi)
Period U-234 U-235 U-236 U-238 Total
- 01/01/82 - 06/30/82 169.06 7.54 0.76 39.5 216.87 07/01/82 - 12/31/82 81.69 3.65 0.37 19.1 104.79 01/01/83 - 06/30/83 50.60 2.26 0.23 11.8 64.90 07/01/83 - 12/31/83 346.11 15.44 1.56 80.9 443.98 01/01/84 - 06/30/84 102.92 4.59 0.46 24.0 132.02 07/01/84 - 12/31/64 121.75 5.43 0.55 28.4 156.18 01/01/85 - 06/30/85 122.00 5.44 0.55 28.5 156.49 07/01/85 - 12/31/85 -
74.40 3.32 0.34 17.4
-95.46 01/01/86 - 06/30/86 63.80 2.85 0.29 14.9 81.84 07/01/86 - 12/31/86 249.00 11.10 1.12 58.3 319.52 01/01/87 - 06/30/87 86.10 3.84 0.39 20.1 110.43 07/01/87 - 12/31/87 54.00 2.41 0.24 12.6 69.25 01/01/88 06/30/88 164.10 7.32 0.74 38.4 210.60' 07/01/88 - 12/31/88 57.38 2.56 0.26 13.4 73.62 01/01/89 - 06/30/89 117.00 5.2 0.53 27.3 150.03 07/01/89 - 12/31/89 46.09 2.1 0.21 11.0 60.2
- The total microcuries are measured values; the release for each isotope is calculated based on 2.93 w/o uranium enrichment'.
Since December 1987, CNFP has utilized the evaporator system for handling potentially radioactive liquids.
Radioactive particles have not been discharged through the retention tanks.
While some residual contamination would be expected to. remain in the lines, the discharges have. remained unexpectedly.high.
During the first half of 1988, over 280 microcuries of-uranium were discharged via the liquid effluent.
According to CNFP, this was a result of flushing the liquid effluent discharge line and leak test-1 ing the lines leading into the retention tanks in March and April-of 1988.
This action should have flushed most of the remaining residual contamina-tion from the lines.
However, the uranium discharge for the first half of 1989 was also higher than expected, at 150 microcuries; the second half of 1989 was down to 60 microcuries.
CNFP states that currer:: releases average less than 1 percent of MPC.
The staff is concerned about the elevated uranium discharges; if these discharges remain elevated, CNFP should ir,vestigate to determine the source and take corrective action to prevent unintentional releases.
Therefore, the staff recommends that CNFP set an action level, based on a gross alpha, of 2.5 percent of MPC (uranium) in 10 CFR 20, App. B, Table II, col. 2, that if exceeded, will-trigger an investigation of the source and corrective action, if necessary.
- Normally, a higher action level is allowed, however, since CNFP does not discharge contaminated liquids via the liquid stream, the staff believes a lower action level is justified.
t
- i '
Babcock & Wilcox Fuel Company _
-8 gg y 4 Solids Contaminated wastes from fuel handling areas consist of packaging material, floor sweepings, filters, decontamination materials, contaminated equipment, and evaporator sludge.
Contaminated solid wastes are disposed of by a licensed contractor by land burial at an NRC or state licensed site.
Additionally, CNFP generates approximatley three 55 gallon drums of mixed waste per year, which NNFD has agreed to accept for storage.
B.
Nonradiological Effluents Air t
The nonradiological airborne effluents are not filtered prior to. release.
Areas where releases might occur are the NH3 dissociation building, the fuel rod production area and cleaning room, and the fuel assembly room and storage area.
Acetone and trichloroethylene (TCE) are the major contributors.
The amounts released are small and are not expected to result in measurable changes in the air quality beyond the plant site boundary.
Liquid The Metallcgraphic Laboratory discharges approximately 100 gallons of nonradiological liquids a month.
This includes the etching solutions used for zirconium and stainless steel which consists of nitric acid, hydrofluoric acid, and oxalic acid.- Deionizer regeneration results in the L
-discharge _of approximately 7,100 gallons of caustic soda and moriatic acid l-per month.
The Parts Cleaning Room discharges are about 5,400 gallons a month.
Included in this effluent are TCE, nitric acid, and EDTA.
These nonradiological process liquid effluents are treated and released from the liquid waste retention tank system on a batch basis.
In December 1987, charcoal filters were added to remove TCE contaminants prior to
-entering the collection system.
The CNFP operates under a State issued l
NPDES permit for the liquid discharges. -This permit' expires'in 1991.
L CNFP has applied to the Virginia Water Control Board for a modification
[
to their NPDES permit.
The modification has not yet been approved.
t Non-contact cooling water drains into the fire pond.
Additionally, pre-cipitation runoff from the parking lot, paved plant area, plant roof, and adjacent higher elevations of the site accumulates in the fire pond.
The fire pond holds about 2.4E7 liters and continuously discharges.
Chemical contamination _of the pond from plant operation is not expected to be.
significant because few chemicals are in contact with non-radioactive drainage systems in the plant.
However, chemical spills within the
-storage area are routed via the storm drains to the fire pond.
Sanitary wastes for the CNFP'are piped to the NNFD sanitary waste treatment facility.
The CNFP sewage is about-10 percent of the total sewage treated at the NNFD.
The NNFD sanitary system is operated under authority of a State-issued NPDES permit.
(. ;
s.
Babcock & Wilcox Fuel' Company 9
gyy4 g Solids-Uncontaminated solid wastes are disposed of by a private waste hauler at the Lynchburg Sanitary Landfill.
'C.
Monitoring Program and Results I
An environmental monitoring program is conducted to provide information on the environmental. impact of site operations.
Though CNFP does have procedures for the environmental monitoring program, CNFP has not committed to the use of approved procedures for conducting the environmental-monitoring. program.
Therefore, the staff recommends that all environmental monitoring be conducted in accordance with approved procedures.
The staff further recommends that the procedures require that data from the monitoring program be evaluated against an internal action level.
This will assure that unusual results are investigated.
The environmental monitoring program is summarized in Table 4, and the sampling. locations are shown in Figure 3.
Below is a brief discussion on the monitoring program and results.
Surface Water Each quarter, grab samples are taken from five sampling points:
the confluence of the_ wet-weather stream and the James River, upstream on the James River, downstream on-the James River, the discharge stream, and'the fire pond.
The samples are analyzed for gross alpha.
The results are presented in. Table 5 for the years 1982-1988. A comparison of the results from the downstream station (I), confluence station (J), and upstream station (K) indicate that-plant operations have not had a negative impact on the radiological quality I
of the water.
The average for the upstream statio'n has generally been higher than or equal to_the values from the downstream station and the confluence L
station.
On three occasions, over the last 7 years, the fire' pond samples have exhibited elevated gross alpha values (over 10 pci/1).
There is no apparent-reason for these occurrences as there is no source pathway to the pond other than by deposition.
The three elevated samples by themselves are not significant, there is no. trend that would indicate potential problems in the fire pond.
Non-radiological parameters are regulated by the State-issued NPDES perm _it.
CNFP has applied for a modification to its NPDES permit The existing perait expires in 1991.
To show compliance with the Clean Water Act, licensees must provide ev.idence of continuing Section 401(a)(1) certification-into the renewal peried.
CNFP has stated that it will provide the NRC a copy of their new NPDES permit when L
it is issued by Virginia.
However, to insure that the NRC is informed of any changes in the effectiveness of the Section 401(a)(1) certification, the staff recommends tr.at the licensee be required to inform the NRC within 30 days if the State permitting agency revokes, supersedes, conditions, modifies or otherwise nullifies the effectiveness of the State-issued NPDES permit for the discharge of liquid effluents.
p L *J-y h
O*
l 10 MAY 14 Igg s
COLLECTION MINIMUM MINIMUM SAMPLE FREQUENCY GAMPLE CAMPLE
' TYPE OF DETECTABLE TYPE
. LOCATIONS
& ANALYSIS SIZE TYPE ANALYSIS LEVEL t.
Water E,I,J,K,L Quarterly I liter Greb-Gross =
2.7x10'I a i/mi c
Air A,C,F continuous Contin.
Filter Gross =
2.5x10'I4pci/mi i
Soil A,b,D,F,H annually 100 grams Grab
' Gross =
1oCi/g f
Soil' G
Quarterly 100 grams Grab Gross =
1oCi/g r-Hadiation A,B,C,F
' Quarterly N/A 9 TLD TLD
' 10 mrem Reading Sediment E,I,J,K,L.
Quarterly 100 grams Grab Gross =
1 o Ci/g
-Vegetation A,B,F,H Semiannually 500 grams Grab Gross =
1oC1/g l
l l
l 1
i l
l l
Table 4:
Environmental Monitoring Program
11 MAY j 4 : 1999 ENVIRONMENTAL MLN'TORING STATION DIAGRAM Y
V*%
Ig@
A'<g,,[
%p, l
f5f
- o,{eo f(#
'f e+ --
@\\
'd n
s c
s.r.
a
'o# -
%,[L_
w l
' #+,
^
s::,,
s/A
- y[
N A& K
- Background Stations Statien Sample h
Identification n.p -
A Soil, Air, Vegetation, TLD B
Soil, Vegetation, TLD C-Air, TLD O
Soil E
Water, Sadiment F
Soil, Air, Vegetation, TLD G
Soil H
Soil, Vegetation I
Water, Sediment J
Water, Sediment X
Nater, Sediment L
Water, Sediment t
Figure 3
~.
f 12 Babcock & Wilcox Fuel' Company gy y 4 Table 5.
Surface water monitoring results Station Location
'(pCi/1)
Time E
I J
K L
i Jan-82 12.6 0.5 3.6
- 0. 5 Apr-82
-3.2 0.5 0.5 C.5.
Jul-82 2.0 2.0
- 2. 0 2.0 Oct-82 1.0 1.0 1.0
- 1. 0 Jan-83 12.0 0.1-0.1 3.2 Apr-83 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.1
'Jul-83 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Oct-83 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3
Jan-84' 25.0
- 2. 0 2.0 2.0 Apr-84 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Jul-84l
- 2. 0 2.0 2.0
- 2. 0 -
Oct-84'
- 4. 0 '
2.0 2.0 2.0 Jan-85 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 0.0
'Apr-85 2,0
- 2. 0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Jul-85 3.0
.2.0 2.0 2.0
- 0. 0 Oct-85 6.0-2.0 2.0 2.0
- 0. 0 -
Jan 2. 0 -
4.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 Apr-86 4.0
- 2. 0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Jul-86
- 4.0 4.0 7.0 2.0
- 2. 0 Oct-86 7.0 6.0 7.0 5 ~. 0 2.0 Jan-87 2.0 2.0
- 2. 0 2.0
- 2. 0 Apr-87'
- 2. 0 6.0 2.0 8.0 2.0 Jul-87 7.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
- 2. 0 -
.i n
Oct-87 2.0 2.0
'2. 0 2.0 2.0 Jan-88 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 t
Apr-88 2.0
- 2. 0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Jul-88 3.0 2.0 2.0
- 3. 0 2.0=
Oct-88 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
- 5. 0 Air Currently,-grab samples are. collected from three locations and analyzed for gross alpha on a monthly basis.
The data _is provided for 1982-1988 in Table 6.
A review of the data indicates that the maximum concentration of 2.36E-13 pci/ml. which was~obtained in the third quarter of 1986, is below the 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II, value for uranium of 2E-11 pci/ml in unrestricted areas.
However, the 1986 third quarter. samples were all about a factor of 10 higher than samples obtained during the other sampling periods.
Because the samples were obtained during a period when L
the plant was not in operation and the stack reported normal air c
{ ;..
E,
l p >L Babbock&WilcoxFuelCompany 13 g4y I 4 1990 concentrations during the timeframe, these results do not appear to be related to CNFP operations.
Samples should be obtained when the plant is operational.
Additionally, grab samples only provide an instaneous value; continuous samplers provide more accurate, more reliable information.
Therefore,.instead of. taking grab samples, CNFP has commited to collecting continuous samples from the three locations.
Gross alpha analysis will be
. monthly.
Additionally, CNFP has added evaluation levels to the procedure
-for environmental air samples so that sample results out of the normal range are investigated.
1 Table 6.
Air monitoring.results Station Location (pCi/ml x 10 14)
Time A
C F
1st-82 1.10 1.50 1.20 2nd-82 1.35 1.65 1.75 3rd-82 0.78 1.70 1.45 4th-82 0.98 1.20 1.30 1st-83 1.50 1.70 0.96 2nd-83 0.92 1.10 1.00 3rd-83 2.03 2.73 3.13 4th-83 1.05 0.98 1.05 1st-84 1.28 2.10 1.63 L
2nd-84 2.17 3.03 2.10 L
3rd-84 2.03 2.07 3.53 4th-84 1.67 2.13 5.67 1st-85 1.46 1.90 2.93 L
2nd-85 1.76 2.23 2.16 l
3rd-85' 2.50 4.96 2.03 4th-85 1.70 1.61 2.93 1st-86 2.16 2.40 2.83 l
2nd-86 2.13 2.53 2.60 3rd-86 20.80 13.60 23.60 4th-86 1.40 1.46 2.80 1st-87 1.56 1.73 1.86 2nd-87 1.04 1.29 1.07
~3rd-87 0.95 1.02 1.10 4th 0.90 1.46 1.03 1st-88 1.18 2.57 1.43 2nd-88 3.74 1.88 0.69 3rd-88 0.63 0.72 0.76 4th-88 0.53 0.45 0.50
J
. ', 6 1
c.
Babcock & Wilcox Fuel Company' 14 MAY ! 4 1990 -
Soil Soil' samples are taken annually from five locations and quarterly from another location. These samples are analyzed for gross alpha.
Table '7 contains results for 1982-1988..The concentrations in the soil samples
-have fluctuated from lows of less than 1 pci/gm to highs of 15 pci/gm.
The higher values do not correspond to higher releases.
Recent samples are at the lower end of the range indicating that buildup and accumulation are not.a problem.
J i
Table 7.
Soil monitoring results Station Location (pci/g) l L
Time A
B 0
F H
Apr-82
- 1. 8 1.1
- 0. 9 1.0 1.7 Apr-83 0.9 2.3
- 2. 3 2.8
- 1. 0 Apr-84.
3.1 2.3 2.1 4.5 4.4 Apr-85 5.3 10.0 15.0 10.0 4.0 Apr-86 2.5 2.8 3.5
- 2. 6 4.5 i
L
'Apr-87 6.0 4.5 5.0 10.0 6.2 Apr-88 1.2 0.9 0.9
- 1. 6
.1. 5 i
p The results from station G are presented in' Table-8.
The wet-weather stream and surrounding area have been identified as containing elevated levels of uranium.
CNFP conducted an evaluation of the contamination and.
reported to the NRC by letter dated November 1, 1984.
The' area involved (based on the 30 pci/g level of the Branch Technical ~ Position) is about
.0.6 acres.
CNFP' currently has no plans for removing the contaminated soil and sediment.
CNFP has fenced and posted the area to prevent inadvertent-
. unauthorized entrance..The monitoring program includes quarterly samples from the area to assure that increased levels of contamination or further spreading are recognized and controlled.
ns:
". 1 3
Babcock & Wilcox Fuel Company 15 MAY I4 HNO' Table 8.
Soil monitoring results - discharge stream (pCi/g)
G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10 Oct-84 15.0 30.0 72.0 30.0 5.0 20.0 18.0 44,0 9.0 Jan-85 0.4 0.7 34.0 Apr-85 15.0 12.0 74.0 46.0 5.0 10.0 40.0 62.0 7.0 Jul-85
. :UD. 0 11.0 50.0 20.0 6.0 9.5 20.0 43.0 5.2 Oct-85
- 1. 8 3.4 15.0 78.0 1.9 1.1 5.8 12.0 1.4 Jan-86' 5.6 4.9 22.0 92.0 2.9 4.7 15.0 19.0 4.2-Apr-86
- 1. 3 1.6 11.0 35.0 1.0 1.3 37.0 10.0
- 1. 0 Jul-86 9.0 2.8 28.0 74.0 2.5 3.9 11.5 16.0
- 3. 0 Oct-86 5.2.
2.6 35.0 17.0 2.0 160.0 16.0 7.0 2.3 Jan-87 10.0 8.0 44.0 28.0 6.0 10.5 34.0 31.0
'7.0 Apr-87 11.0 8.8 58.0 13.0 7.0 8.8 12.0 42.0 6.5 Jul-87
- 9. 0 5.0 44.0 20.0 4.0 7.5 37.0 22.0 10.5 Oct-87 8.8 6.6 36.8 9.7 2.1 3.0 21.3 13.5 0.1 Jan-88 6.0 4.1 17.5 13.9 3.0 3.9 15.1 31.4 5.2 Apr-88 2.5 2.0 11.1 4.5 1.4 1.7 4.6
- 8. 0
_ 1. 0 Jul-88 5.8 8.5 50.4 10.9 7.5
- 5. 6 21.3 26.1 4.3 Oct-88 6.3 10.4 61.8 7.8 3.8 6.1 11.1 16.1 4.8 Since CNFP is no longer discharging contaminated liquids to the wet-weather stream, CNFP should remove the contaminated soil so the area can be released for unrestricted use.
The cost of removing and disposing of the soil will only increase over time, and the contamination may spread resulting in a larger volume.
Therefore, the staff recommends that CNFP conduct a characterization survey and develop and action plan for the cleanup of the contaminated soil and submit the plan for NRC review within 9 months of the date of license renewal.
Sediment Quarterly sediment samples are taken from five locations: the wet-weather stream (L), the confluence (J), the upstream (K) and downstream (I) locations, and the' fire pond (E).
The samples are analyzed for gross alpha.
The results are provided in Table 9.
The downstream and confluence sediments do not demonstrate significant changes from the samples taken upstream of the confluence.
Samples from the stream itself do exhibit elevated levels and are included in the recommenaation for the wet-weather stream area.
Sediments from the pond have occasionally shown elevated levels; however, no trend is discernable.
l,.;
^ 1; e
=
. e (Babcock & Wilcox Fuel Company.
16 MAY ! 4 1990 1:
' Table 9. Sediment monitoring results Station Location i
(pCi/g)
Time E
I J
K L
Jan-82
. 0, 3 5.4 0.8 37.8 0.5 3.0
- 0. 7 29.3 Apr-82 Jul 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.8 Oct 0.3 7.7
- 0. 3 52.7 4
Jan-83 20.0 0.3 6.0 0.3 77.0 Apr-83 0.3 0.6 1.1 0.5 101.3 Jul-83 12.5 1.7 1.3 4.7 8.6 1
Oct-83 12. 0 3.5 0.6
- 1. 7 7.0 Jan-84 27.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 6.4 Apr-84' 1.6
_1. 0 1.4
~4.5 6.4 Jul-84 12.0 0.3 2.0 1.8 9.2 8.0 11.7 Oct-84 12.0 4.0 Jan-85 44.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 12.0-
~
-Apr-85 17.0 3.5 11.0
'7.0
'4. 5 Jul-85 14.0 3.5 1.8 3.5 3.4 Oct-85
- 0. 9 2.6 1.8 0.3 2.0 s
Jan-86 5.4 1.5 1.3
-1.4 3.4 Apr-86 1.5
- 1. 2 2.0 1.5
_ 0. 3 Jul 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.5 -
40.0 Oct 2. 0 1.5 3.2
- 1. 5 3.0 Jan-87 11.0 2.0 1.8
- 1. 2 6.5
.Apr-87 5.4-2.2
- 2. 3 -
4.2 13.5 Jul 5. 4 - 2.6 3.0-2.8 6.6
3 Oct-87 5.6 1.3 2.7 0.1-4.9
- Jan-88 3.1-1.8
- 2. 6 2.2 13.1 Apr-88
- 0. 5_
0.7 0.5 6.4 1.9-Jul-88 7.7 1.9-
- 2. 8
- 5. 0 22.7 Oct 5.6 4.5 2.6 2.7 15.0 Vegetation
' Vegetation is sampled semiannually at four locations.
The grab samples are analyzed for gross alpha.
The vegetation monitoring results are provided_in Table 10.
The range for the timeframe of 1982-1988 is 0.1 to 0.6 pci/g, the average is 0.3 pci/g.
This compares to a preoperational level of 0.7 pci/g, indicating no accumulation of uranium in the vegetation surrounding the plant.
1
p:\\
l 7~
. Babcock *& Wilcox Fuel-Company 17-MAY 14 1990 I
Table 10.
Vegetation monitoring results Station Location (pCi/g)
Time A
B F
H u
Apr-82 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Oct-82
- 0. 5 0.0
- 0. 0
- 0. 3 Apr 0. 2
- 0. 3 -
0.2 0.1 0ct-83
- 0. 5 -
0.3 0.1 0.1 b
Apr-84 0.6 0.3
- 0. 3 0.3 Oct-84 0.3 0.1
- 0. 6
- 0. 6 Apr-85 0.3 0.3
- 0. 3 0.3 Oct-85 03 0.3
'0.3 0.4 Apr-86
- 0. 4 0.4 0.3 0.4 i
Oct-86
- 0. 3 0.3 0.4
- 0. 3 Apr-87
- 0. 3 0.3 0.4
- 0. 3 Oct-87 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Apr-88
- 0. 3 0.3
- 0. 5 0.3 Ambient Radiatin Thermoluminescent dosimeters are placed in four locations around the-facility perimeter.
Data is provided in Table 11 for 1982-1988.The TLDs are collect basis.
dose rate measured was 21 millirem or.about-0.01 millirem / hour.The average quart The comparable background.for the area is 0.01' millirem / hour. (2)
Operations do not appear to be increasing the ambient radiation levels for the area, After evaluation of:CNFP's monitoring program for radionuclides, the staff u
l-concludes that they are adequate to provide the necessary information to show compliance.with regulatiors or to. indicate the' presence of excessive i
buildup of~ radionuclides, s
.D.
Radiological Impacts-The radiological' impacts of. the CNFP were assessed by calculating the i
maximum dose to the individual living at the nearest residence and to the 4
local population living within an 80 km (50 miles) radius of the plant site.
Where site-specific information was not available, assum would tend to maximize the dose were'used in the calculations. ptions that It is only when such conservative assumptions yield a dose near or exceeding the-applicable' limit that CNFP would be required to obtain appropriate data L
for a more realistic evaluation.
as referred to in this assessment, is actually a 50 year dose commitmen for all exposures;. that is, the total dose to the reference organ that 1
will accrue from 1 Llifetime (50 years) year of intake of radionuclides during the remaining of the individual.
4 I
l f
.y
}lt LV i
.: Babcock'& Wilcox. Fuel Company 18 MJ0( 14 1993 -
Table 11.
TLO monitoring results Station Location (mrem)
Quarter A
B C
F-
.beginning
.Jan-82 26.0 24.0 22.0 23.0 Apr-82 27.5.
23.0.25.0-24.0 Jul-82 29.0 24.0 25.0 25.0 Oct-82 32.0 25.0 -28.0 27.0 Jan-83' 21.0 15.5 18.0 17.5
,1 Apr-83 24.0 17.5 23.5 20.5 Jul-83 26.5 27.5 '26.5 30.5 Oct-83 27.0 12;2. 5 26.5 24.0 Jan-84 25.0 22.0 24.0 22.0 Apr 24.0 19.0 20.0
~20.0
'Jul-84 22.0 18.0 20.0 19.0 Oct-84 27.0 22.0 27.0 23.0 Jan-85 20.0 20.0 120.0 119.0 Apr-85 21.0 18.0 20.0 20.0 Jul-85 26.0 19.0 22.0 20.0 Oct 30.0 19.0- 22.0 20.0 q
Jan-86 25.0 16.5 21.0 18.0 Apr-86 29.0
.18.0 21.0 20.0 Jul-86 22.0-15.5~ 16.0 17.0 Oct-86 22.0 18.0 19.5-18.5 Jan-87 17.0 15.0 17.0 15.0 Apr-87 20.5 16.0
.18. 0.
18.0 Jul-87 24.0 16.0 20.0 20.0' Oct-87 18.9-14.'9 16.8 17.0 Jan-88 18.5 16.0 -17.5 17.7 Apr-88 14.0 9.9 13.2 12.0 Jul-88 25.9 22.0 25.2 22.4 l'
Oct-88 16.3 13.7 16.3 15.2 The doses were calculated using radioactive effluent release rates
=
measured at CNFP.
The liquid and gaseous effluent source terms in the calculations were the maximum annual < releases during the last 7 years 4
shown in Tables 1,.2, and 3.
L, For the airborne emissions, source terms are coupled with atmospheric l
dispersion factors and diffusion coefficients.
Dose via significant pathways are determined based on models presented in Regulatory Guide L
1.109 (5) with the exception that dose conversion factors for various organs were taken from ORNL/NUREG-79 (6) and EPA - 520/1-88-020. (7) u The released particles are assumed to be completely in an insoluble form
~
to provide a maximum calculated lung dose for the inhalation pathway and then, completely in a soluble form to provide a maximum calculated bone dose.for the ingestion pathway, t
~~
E4 tu e .
s
' Babcock & Wilecx Fuel Company ~
19 MAY f 41990 Doses'to the Maximally Exposed Individual The nearest residence to the CNFP plant is a residence located 800 meters east northeast of the plant site.
For airborne emissions, the pathways considered in the individual dose estimates were (a) direct irradiation' F
.from ground deposition, (b) immersion in the airborne plume, (c) direct
-inhalation, and (d) ingestion of vegetation, meat, and milk that are conservatively assumed to be produced at the nearest residence.
For-liquid emissions, the' pathways were (a) submersion in water, (b) ingestion of water, and (c) ingestion of fish that are conservatively assumed to be from the James River at the point of influx.
The models and various assumptions involved in the above pathways can be referred to in greater detail in Regulatory Guide 1.109. ' Table 12 summarizes the calculated doses for the nearest resident due to the-airborne effluent.
The 50 year dose commitments for individuals exposed to various aquatic pathways,. associated.with the James River, are shown in Table 13.
The doses are mainly from the inhalation and ingestion pathways.
The critical organ dose to the nearest resident would be 5.4E-2 mrem /yr to the lung..An infant at the nearest residence would receive 9,72E-2 mrem /yr
.to the-lung.
This is well below the 25 mrem permitted by 10 CFR Part.20,.
Section 20.105 (c), which-incorporates the provisions of EPA's standards in-40 CFR Part 190.
The cumulative dose to the nearest resident due to the
-operation of CNFP, NNFD, and the NNFD-Rt is 5.8E-2 mrem to the body (4).
The majority of this is.due to operation at-NNFD.
The cumulative dose is still well below the 25 mrem permitted by the regulations.
l Table 12.
50 year dose commitment to the maximally exposed individual at the nearest residence from the airborne effluents of the CNFP Dose (millirem)
Effective Total Body Bone Lung Inhalation 7 E-3 1.99 E-3 5.4 E-2 Ingestion 3.45 E-4 5.1 E-3 1.16 E-5 L
Immersion in air 1.52 E-10 2.09 E-10 1.4 E-10 b
Exposure to surface 1.92 E-8 2.25 E-8 1.49 E-8 Total 7.3 E-3 7.1 E-3 5.4 E-2
T' I
Babcock & Wilcox Fuel Company 20 MAY I 4 '199
]
5 Table 13.
Maximum 50 year dose commitment from the use of the James River near the liquid effluent discharge of the CNFP Dose (millirem)
~
Effective-Total Body Bone Lungs Submersion in water 8.19 E-11.
1.14 E-10 7.56 E-11 Consumption of water 3,05 E-5 4.49 E-4 1.02 E-6 Consumption of fish 1.75 E-6 2.58 E-5 5.90 E-8 Total 3.22 E-5 4.75 E-4 1.08 E-6 On December 15, 1989, EPA published the " National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Radionuclides; Final Rule and Notice of Reconsideration." This rulemaking established emission standards for various source categories.
EPA granted a reconsideration of the-standards of 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart I, concerning emissions-from facilities licensed by the NRC.
Additionally, judicial, review of the regulations is ongoing in.the United States Court of Appeals for the
-D.C. Circuit.
Therefore, Subpart I has been stayed until July 13,-1990.
Subpart I limits emissions to the ambient air such that.no member of the public would receive-in any year an effective dose equivalent of 10 mrem /yr.
Subpart I also contains. reporting and recordkeeping requirements with which CNFP will have to comply.
Population Doses A total of 572,157 people is estimated to live within the area.
The total body dose of 7.72E-2 man-rem is only about 0.00013 percent of the popu-lation dose' of 6.12E4 man-rem resulting from natural background radiation.
The nearest population which draws on the James River for domestic use is-l Richmond, Virginia, approximately 209 km downstream from the plant site.
Using the radionuclide concentration in the river near the CNFP and ignoring any further dilution, the total-body dose commitment to the
. population at Richmond is 8.0E-3 man-rem.
The annual total-body dose.to this same population from natural background radiation is about 28,248 man-rem.
Therefore, under conservative assumptions, the population dose f
estimate from drinking water from the river is a small fraction of the background radiation dose.
The discharge of effluent has no significant impact on the surrounding population.
9
4 Bab$ock.&'WilcoxFuelCompany 21 MAY 14193 E.
Accidents-Accidents that could occur at the CNFP site are both radiological and nonradiological in nature.
The various types of accidents'possible at the-CNFP facility have been detailed in earlier assessments and include fires, explosion, criticality, UF release, spills, and transportation accidents.-
g The maximum credible accident considered was the rupture of UF cylinders g
and subsequent fire.
Additionally, natural phenomena sucn as tornadoes, earthquakes, and flooding have been considered..It was concluded that none of the probable accidents would result in detectable radiation injury to the public offsite.
The consequences of such accidents have not changed, and the analysis is not repeated.
Decommissioning At the end of. operating-life, the plant will be decontaminated and decommissioned before the site and any plant buildings remaining on the site can'be released for unrestricted use.
In accordance with 10 CFR 70.25, CNFP must on or before July 27, 1990, submit a decommissioning funding plan or certification of financial assurance for decommissioning in an amount at least equal to $750,000.
As a condition of the 10 year renewal, CNFP will be required to submit a decommis-sioning funding plan within 5 years of the renewal.
Agencies and Persons Consulted Staff utilize.' the application dated June 21, 1989, and additional information dated June 21,LAugust 10, and December 19, 1989.
Discussions were held with the Virginia State Water Control Board on February 9 and 12, 1990.
Conclusion
.The staff concludes that the environmental impacts associated with the roposed license renewal for continued operation of CNFP are expected.to be insi nificant.
All existing requirements for environmental monitoring and protection w 11 be continued to evaluate future impacts.
The staff concludes that there will be no significant impacts associated with the proposed action.
The staff does recommend, however, that:-(1) CNFP report semiannual effluent results in-accor-dance'with Section 5 of Regulatory Guide 4.16; (2) CNFP set an action level for liquid effluents, based on gross alpha, of 2.5 percent of the MPC (uranium) in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table II, Column 2, that if exceeded will trigger an investigation of the source and corrective action if necessary; (3) CNFP shall inform the NRC within 30 days if the State permitting agency revokes, supersedes, conditions, modifies, or otherwise nullifies the effectiveness of the State-issued NPDES permit for the discharge of liquid effluents;-(4) CNFP
g,-
k
~
1
't t
I
. Babcock & Wilcox Fuel Company-22 ypy,14 HWO shall conduct a characterization survey and develop an action plan for the cleanup of the contaminated soil from the wet-weather stream and submit the plan for NRC review within'9 months of the:date of4 license renewal; and (5) CNFP.
'sha11' conduct environmental monitoring in accordance with approved procedures,
. which requires the generated data be evaluated against an internal action level.
o Upon issuance of'the-license, these recommendations will be imposed as license
- 4 conditions.
OrgnalSigned By:
Herri Horn Uranium Fuel Section Fuel Cycle Safety Branch Division of-Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, NMSS E"
Approved by:
George H. Bidinger, Section Leader MH/701201 B&W FUEL C0 EA 1
r a
t P
s 1
[.
r I
..[
5.______
II(____________
.[Jb_8)h'______________.._____.____
iv.
NAME:
or :mh:
VLTharpe:
GHBidinger:
DATE:5#Y/90:
5/it/90:
5//y /90:
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
't
i a
m Babcock & Wilcox Fuel Company
~ 23 MAY 141990 References 1.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Impact Appraisal, Babcock & Wilcox Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant, Related to Renewal of Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-1168, Docket No. 70-1201, 1
February 20, 1976, 2.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Impact Appraisal for Renewal.of Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-1168, Docket No.
70-1201, Babcock & Wilcox Company, Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant, May 1983.
3.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Impact Appraisal for Renewal of Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-42, Docket No. 70-27, Babcock & Wilcox, Naval Nuclear Fuel Division, March 1984.
4.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Assessment for Renewal
.of Materials License No. SNM-778, Docket.No.70-824, Babcock and Wilcox, Lynchburg Research Center, December 1986.
5.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases.of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating
- Compliance with 10.CFR.Part 50," Regulatory Guide.l.109, Appendix I, Rev. 1, October 1977.
6.
D.C. Kocher, Dose-Rate Conversion Factors for External Exposure to Photons and Electrons, ORNL/NUREG-79, Oak Ridge National = Laboratory, August-1981.
7.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Limiting Values of Radionuclide Intake and Air Concentration and Dose Conversion Factors for Inhalation, Submersion, and Ingestion, Federal Guidance Report No. 11,
-EPA-520/1-88-020, September 1988.
l-l l.
l